House approves Constellation language, but does it still matter?

By Jeff Foust on 2010 July 29 at 6:14 am ET

Earlier this week the House approved the Senate version of an FY10 supplemental appropriations bill that includes a provision regarding NASA. That provision, which the Senate added in May, requires that FY10 Constellation funds “shall be available to fund continued performance of Constellation contracts, and performance of such Constellation contracts may not be terminated for convenience.” The language was designed to reinforce a provision in the original FY10 bill that prevented NASA from terminating Constellation programs without Congressional approval.

The passage, though, comes just days after the GAO found that NASA was not in violation of that original provision nor was it withholding funding for Constellation programs. “According to NASA financial data, by June 30, 2010, NASA had obligated 83 percent of the Exploration funds that Congress appropriated for fiscal year 2010,” the GAO report noted. “By comparison, the corresponding figure in fiscal years 2009 and 2008 was 73 percent.” The report added that the GAO had found no evidence that “NASA is taking any steps to terminate or end the Constellation program” in the current fiscal year.

The GAO report also found no evidence of impropriety by NASA with regards to Constellation contract termination costs. “We recognize that progress toward meeting key Constellation milestones has slowed and that job losses have occurred,” it noted. “However, the evidence we have gathered to date indicates that NASA is adhering to its policy and the FAR [Federal Acquisition Regulation] terms incorporated into the Constellation prime contracts concerning allowable costs, including potential termination costs.”

All it proves is that the GAO is in league with Elon Musk acolytes like Bolden and Garver, and has made a weak attempt to provide them with a fig leaf. It won’t mean much to Senator Shelby who is out for blood. There are no trustworthy, impartial judgments in Washington. None.

All it proves is that the GAO is in league with Elon Musk acolytes like Bolden and Garver,”

That just proved that amightywind is delusional and has no concept of reality. You are just making nonsensical statements that are reflect your warped view of the situation. The GAO is not a friend of NASA. They work for congress and not the president or NASA.

Thanks, mightywind, for taking the clown, er, crown as funniest guy here. For a while I thought Hillhouse would claim it, but he doesn’t appear to have the stamina to be as consistently hilarious as you. Congratulations!

I really think it’s best if everyone just ignores amightywind. I do. Every message he posts, I just scroll right on by. When you reply to his drivel, you give him the attention he wants. Everyone here already knows about his act. So just ignore him and talk about space politics instead of him. He wants you talking about him, not space.

If you were from a center-right perspective, you should be supporting commercial space 100% vs gov’t operated space systems. If you were from a center-right perspective, Spacex would be your poster child.

“They work for congress are defending their credibility? Who is being nonsensical?:”

Stick to the topic and don’t change the point, you said “GAO is in league with Elon Musk acolytes like Bolden and Garver”. It has nothing to do with the GAO’s creditability, it has to do with their allegiance and it is to congress and not to the President and his appointees. So saying that the GAO is a Musk supporter is nonsensical and amightywind is the one with no credibility.

If you were from a center-right perspective, you should be supporting commercial space 100% vs gov’t operated space systems. If you were from a center-right perspective, Spacex would be your poster child.

I think you assume to be a conservative you must defer to a market for all things, even when the market is rigged and politically tainted as is the ‘market’ for commercial space. You are wrong. You should not outsource your thinking. Manned space flight is more analogous to the military. It is a shared resource the country needs. It is used to project power and influence. Obamaspace is a far left policy as it recklessly attempts to destroy an agency of value to the American public for no apparent reason, and deemphasize American tecnological influence for no benefit.

“The best way now to project power and influence is through the market place. ”

Nice to see some lucidity in here! You’d think people would understand that after the last crash but maybe we need another financial crash? Would that make it clear for the old Cold War mentality out there? You don’t need to go through actual wars to steal the riches of other countries…